9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of order of confiscation under the Sea Customs Act 2. Imposition of personal penalty and violation of principles of natural justice Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the order of confiscation on the grounds of the invalidity of section 178A of the Sea Customs Act. However, a subsequent judgment by the Supreme Court upheld the validity of section 178A, rendering this contention moot. The impugned order of confiscation was based on two considerations mentioned in the judgment. Even if the petitioner's argument about the absence of reasonable belief in seizing the diamonds was valid, the order would still stand based on evidence indicating illegal importation. The petitioner's claim of coercion in making statements was deemed a question of fact not admissible in the petition. 2. The second part of the order, imposing a personal penalty, was challenged on two grounds. Firstly, the petitioner disputed being the person concerned in the diamond importation offense under section 167(8). Secondly, it was argued that the order violated natural justice principles by relying on a witness's statement without allowing cross-examination. The court referred to a previous judgment stating that refusal to permit cross-examination of relied-upon witnesses violates natural justice. Consequently, the order imposing the personal penalty was deemed invalid due to this violation. As a result, the petition succeeded in challenging the personal penalty imposition but failed in contesting the confiscation order. The court issued a writ of Certiorari quashing the personal penalty order, allowing Customs authorities to conduct a new inquiry following proper procedures.
|
